United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston DivisionOct 17, 2005
Civil Action No. H-05-2244 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2005)

Civil Action No. H-05-2244.

October 17, 2005


SIM LAKE, District Judge

The plaintiff in the above-styled cause has not responded to this court's order of September 30, 2005, which required the plaintiff to submit a more definite statement of the facts on which his complaint is based no later than October 10, 2005. The plaintiff had been granted an extension after he had previously been ordered to submit a more definite statement no later than September 28, 2005. See Order for More Definite Statement, Docket Entry No. 5. Both of the court's Orders specifically provided that "(f)ailure to comply as directed may result in the dismissal of this action." The plaintiff's failure to pursue this action forces this court to conclude that he lacks due diligence.

Therefore, under the inherent powers necessarily vested in a court to manage its own affairs, this court determines that dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962);Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995). The plaintiff is advised, however, that upon a proper showing, relief from this order may be granted in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). See Link, 82 S.Ct. at 1391.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution.

The Clerk shall provide copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties.